Racketeering, Corruption, Organization, Influence for Profit, Part I of V: Washington State Bar Exposed as RICO

Post navigation

The Washington State Bar is running a racketeering organization on behalf of a few very elite political operatives inside Washington State politics. After reviewing thousands of files, objective evidence, speaking with over twenty Washington State lawyers, and county Sheriff investigative files, we conclude that a major function of the Washington State Bar is to cover up criminal conduct mainly committed by County, agency, and state employees ( which includes Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe’s Prosecutors, Washington State Court of Appeals Div I judges, at least three Snohomish County judges, and Executive John Lovick.

We also uncovered evidence that includes several high ranking Washington State and County public officials involvement in a child pedophile trafficking ring. Another story coming soon. READ the full story at The Gold Bar Reporter.

Published by staff activist

26 Comments

OMG. I wonder if some of Gregoire’s other appointments to the bench were also chosen in a similar manner. If there is one such case, then there may be more than one I would guess.

I’ve often wondered whether there was a trafficking ring involved, especially given repeated and overly effusive public statements made by a former Washington State official concerning their great and undying love for children. It seems to me more like an attempt to cover up a major problem by hiding the weakness front and center under the spin of an illusion of strength. Nobody with a normal mind/intellect would be dumb enough to say such things to the press for publication. It is bizarre.

This is a little off topic, but I thought I’d publish a portion of a discussion taking place via email about a “documentary” that is being produced.. so it is a little out of context, but you’ll see the point.

This is how to effectively address Judicial Corrupt … We must “destroy the reputation of law schools” and the “professors” who breed the arrogance, legal tactics and blatant unethical conduct that spawns corrupt judges and lawyers. It is these “law schools” who have lost their purpose and are intent in creating a “shadow government” by and through their “best of breed, most arrogant and unethical” students and the Bar Associations in which they have great influence.

In today’s world, where everyone with a computer and access to the Internet can read for themselves the laws which they have passed by their representatives, the need for lawyers to tell us what we mean by the laws we write and we pass is absurd and in my opinion – perverted.

Call the law schools and their professors what they are — whores, outdated and irrelevant and a danger to a civilized society. This should be the focus of any “documentary” and “grassroots effort” to address these “Black Robed Predators”.

Imagine that the Supremes ruled recently on a free speech zones case for protesters extending the areas allowed but exempting the Supreme Court from its application to protests against them and their own decisions as in Bush v Gore which was the first and only sui generis opinion and thus not to be taken as precedent and thus not reviewable by a future and different Supreme Court. Imagine that the Congress is exempt from a long list of laws that apply to everyone else. The same with the lawyers and judges who see perjury and obstruction of justice every day but refuse to be bound by their duty as citizens, never mind as officers of the court or members of the bar, to report felony crimes asap under 18 USC 4 (Misprision of a Felony) and 73 (Obstruction of Justice”. And when this goes on, in a system based on case law and precedent, injustices go on as precedents to cause and legitimate and cover-up other future injustices that are certain if the perps are not dealt with by law.

I must object to calling judges and lawyers “whores” as this is unfair to prostitutes who are mostly exploited rather than exploiters, they actually work for a living at often dangerous, low-paying and degrading work, most of whom want to get out of not higher in the business, and when they have to lie and do and acting job they do not equivocate and call it openly what it is.

Ha ha – agree on the characterization 🙂 Please do not misrepresent the hard working person who is only doing what they can to make their living day by day! These judges and lawyers are just plain selfish, greedy and evil. Calling them snakes would be to depredate the reptiles!

Look at the school system. If you replaced 2 hours a day of the political indoctrination and other useless babysitting in grades 7-12 with one hour of instruction on how to run a business and one hour on law and do-it-yourself lawering, the middle class in the US might have a chance of recovering within a generation or so.

Here is an email I wrote regarding misconduct of the Washington State Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC). Former Justice Richard Sanders was “outraged” by this conduct of the ODC. The Bar Association covered this misconduct up.Every citizen of Washington should read this. Sadly, I have not received any response from Mr. Mosner or anyone else.

I have known you since law school and we have crossed paths over the years in various cases including work as outside counsel for First Interstate Bank and in our discussions about my efforts to have your AG’s office and the DOJ pursue a Medicaid/Medicare Fraud case involving J&J’s blockbuster anti-anemia drug Procrit. You have always been a straight shooter.

Since you were on the WSBA Disciplinary Board in 2006 and the Chairperson of Review Committee IV that unanimously ordered the Karen Unger disciplinary matter to a hearing, I wonder if you could answer a few questions for us about that case.

The WSBA agreed to pay the sum of $60,000 to partially compensate attorney Karen Unger for her attorney fees in defending against the disciplinary proceeding filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) in In re Karen Unger, Public No. 06#00071. Ms. Unger had been accused of attorney misconduct in representing a criminal defendant in a federal court criminal proceeding. The disciplinary counsel, Kathleen Dassel, had previously been a state and federal public defender. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Douglas Ende, was a specialist in criminal appellate law while in private practice. The Hearing Officer, Gregory Dahl, found that the disciplinary proceeding was frivolous and without merit. Ms. Unger’s counsel, David Allen, one of Washington’s pre-eminent attorneys, stated that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel presented false, untrue and misleading information to your Disciplinary Board’s Review Committee, which determines whether a disciplinary proceeding proceeds to hearing. The entire file in the In re Unger proceeding is contained on line at http://www.legalez.com/unger.pdf and in the attached UNGER SETTLEMENT document.

My questions to you are:
• Was this matter kept a secret from WSBA members? If so, why? Why wasn’t I provided information about this matter when I first inquired about it in 2008? How was this disclosed or publicized to WSBA members over the past six years? Why was this kept a secret from the members of the Bar and, apparently, from at least some members of the Supreme Court like Justice Sanders? Why was there a cover-up? Was the purpose of the non-disclosure to influence the WSBA membership vote on the dues rollback vote?

• Are transparency and trust important to the ODC, the Disciplinary Board and the WSBA?

• How many times has the Hearing Officer, Gregory Dahl, been appointed as the Hearing Officer since serving in the Unger case?

• Where did this settlement money come from? What is the legal authority for this payment?

• Why didn’t the Bar pay all of Unger’s attorney fees, which I understand were over $100,000?

• Was there any kind of investigation into the conduct of the WSBA’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) handling this matter? If not, why not? As former Justice Sanders states*(see my email exchange with former Justice Sanders below), why are these members of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel still working there? Why haven’t they been fired and disbarred like the Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor in NC, Mike Nifong? Justice Sanders was “outraged at the time” and “still is”. If the ODC can bring a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Madeline Gauthier for filing an allegedly frivolous show cause proceeding (see attached email to all members of WSBA), why shouldn’t the responsible ODC attorneys also be subject to disciplinary proceedings for bringing a disciplinary proceeding against Ms. Unger that has been found to be frivolous?

• Why was Justice Owens allowed to testify on Ms. Unger’s behalf in violation of the Rules?

Why don’t you or the Disciplinary Board or the Review Committee or the Supreme Court care that these kinds of misrepresentations were made by the ODC to the Review Committee?

Yes Paul, I have heard this. If I were still on the court I would try to get you all the details, but I think that might be difficult. But I’ll try if you can’t get satisfaction. I suggest you call Justice Owens. Karen Unger is her friend and she (Owens) recused from her case for that reason. She knows the details or could get them. Let me know what you find out. While I was on the court I tried mightly to change the rule which says if the lawyer loses he pays the bar’s reasonable attorney fees, but if he wins the bar doesn’t pay anything. You also might call Karen’s lawyer. Like I said if you strike out I’ll try to help myself. Great to hear from you.
Richard

In a message dated 7/27/2011 4:39:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, psimmerly@hermanrecor.com writes:
Justice Sanders: Well, I have struck out. I have been trying for three years to obtain this information. The ODC is free to take Membership money at any time? Why is this a secret? Is there misconduct going on that the Bar wants to remain secret? Why else wouldn’t this information be readily available? The ODC is retaliating against me and my clients. Please do not contact Justice Owens or any other sitting Justice. The ODC is claiming that this would be ex parte contact. Their reasoning escapes me.

When I first heard about this, a long time before you contacted me, I was outraged. Still am. I was also told the same attorney at fault is still employed by the bar. See my last message for further action.

Paul, when the Disciplinary Board was outraged about the 1.5 pg. email I sent to Julie Shankland being somewhat cynical within its contents, suggesting to her that she distribute my suggestions to the entire Bar for their next quarterly meeting. suggestions of what had been illegally done to me and ignored by the entire Bar, executive officials, the Fund and the Disc. Board, I suggested under the Right to practice Rule , the right to practice Law while currently suspended from practice(unstoppable) the right to conspire with opposing council, the right to retain unaccounted for funds. The right to sell out your own client. Making these preposterous suggestions so as to streamline their entire operation and eliminate most all future grievances from being filed, due to the fact that there would no longer be any grounds for filing a grievance. This is after I had caught Robert Welden and his assistant Elizabeth Turner out right defrauding me of the money I had filed for in their Fund which was a very solid unquestionable application that fell dead smack well within the guidelines required to have a successful application approved by the Board of Governors. I had already gone to the AGO about this whereas they told me that they could not be involved in any way, they had no authority or jurisdiction over the Bar. that if I would wish to pursue this further, that I should contact the Supreme Court. Well unbeknownst to the AGO, I had already done so, contacting Mr. Carpenter, who is of course the task force agent for the WSBA. Having Mr. Carpenter after I had provided him with signed proof of this fraud on Miss Turner’s own letter head with her signature on it completely reversing the main facts within my application to the fund to read 180 degrees opposite to what in truth had taken place, reply to me that he nor his Office were concerned wit the daily decision making or the conduct of the executive Officials of the WSBA, so goodbye Mr. Gambill. Even though what I had clearly and consistently stated to the Fund in Writing, whereas having Miss Turner say that as a result of Gregory Grahn refusing to provide me my fully paid for , agreed to in Court Deed Release, that it had caused me to lose my home years before( having at that time still consistently owned the same home for 30 yrs and sitting in it currently while filing this specific application to the Fund) and that I had not agreed to pay $1500 for the attorneys to provide my quit claim deed release to me within 24hrs of that proceeding. So they denied the application based on this fraud stating that They did not Fund for Fee disputes nor Consequential damages. So with Miss Turner in such a hurry to cheat me and defraud me , along with appeasing the wish’s of her superior Mr. Welden, where does she send the denial to ? You guessed it, to the very same home and address she had just fraudulently altered the facts about and signed her name to swearing that I had lost this same specific home years before! Not even good at this fraudulent wanna be criminal act, barely run of the mill. Well they apparently had become so accustomed to dealing with mush minds and getting away with this type of total BS, they were appalled that I not only caught them but confronted them as well. So the disc. Board knowing that I had caught them and had hard evidence proof of this, they inturn file a grievance for me against Miss Turner without my knowledge or consent. Apparently contacted Ron Carpenter who in turn contacted the AGO Zack Mosener to be this pretend unbiased judge of the unbeknownst to me filed grievance in a duck blind feeble attempt to portray that they were truly addressing my complaints . Totally ridiculous and of the mentality of your average 6th grade class, they do so based solely on this 1.5 pg email I had sent to Julie Shankland only. Not any of the hard undeniable proof contained within the 300 + pages contained within my file at the WSBA. Having Zack Mosener be a well seasoned attorney and surely wise enough to recognize that there was more to this than the 1.5 pg email to Miss Shankland, he still none the less goes along with this ridiculous fraud scheme and proceeds to judge it as if this were all real based on this email only. Having him immediately accuse me of making scatter shot unfounded attacking accusations against poor Felony Fraud committing Miss Turner. Then in so many words attempting to accuse me of simply looking for some free money. When in fact the $288,712.36 I applied for did not even begin to represent what this had truly cost me out of pocket concerning Gregory E, Grahn and Geoffrey c. Cross, having their illegal fraudulent embezzleing antic’s cost me over $2,000,000.00 out of pocket. Having Zack Mosener openly commit himself to Fraud, RICO to cheat a innocent victim that had already lost more because of these attorneys, the felony crime aiding & abetting Superior court, U.s. Bankruptcy court than these judges make during approx. 10yrs.straight pay. Doing this without a blink of an eye at the drop of a hat. So for him not to ever reply to you comes as no surprise to me. Sorry you have lost what you thought to be an old friend that “was” at one time a “Straight shooter” Bruce Gambill

Yes, the WSBA is a private club and a criminal organization as is the American Bar Association and all other state bar associations. They are the real “shadow” government that runs our country, corporations, etc. America, the Land of the Not So Free, has more people in jails/prisons per capita than any other country on earth. The criminal justice system and court system in general is aimed at getting you into the system, taking away your Constitutional/Civil rights, taking away your money/property and keeping you in the system. Our jail/prison systems are now a corporate cash cow.

Our forefathers set up a government with three branch’s for checks and balances. All three branch’s of US government are now run my members of the private club that is the Bar Associations. Where else do you have state and federal laws that protect a private club and bars anyone else from defending his/her family in their kangaroo courts. Our forefather also set up a way to rid ourselves of this plague on America. In the Declaration of Independence its states that it is our “Duty” to rid ourselves of oppressive governments (thus the Bar Associations.)

In my personal experience, the WSBA, through its friends in federal court had a retired federal judge brought out of retirement to dismiss my open and shut case against the criminal organization know that the Kitsap County Sheriff’s office. I filed an appeal and complaint with the 9th federal Circuit Court of Appeals and got a reply that they were dismissing my complaint as the judge was DEAD. The WSBA brought in a judge dying of cancer who was stoned out of his mind on drugs and painkillers and more than likely held his hand as he signed the order denying me my day in court. BTW/ This happened more than once. In a later case when I sued over false statement made to the police, the WSBA arranged for a judge that had been an attorney for one of the four pro bono law firms brought against me. In addition the judge, Pierce County Superior Court Judge Frank Cuthbertson is a convicted criminal with an outstanding arrest warrant and was arrested/convicted for “Dangerous Weapons” while a member of the Communist Party. He lied to attend Seattle U law school, lied to take the bar exam, and lied to the governor of the state to become a judge. The WSBA is now protecting him and makes sure no one runs against him during elections. So much for free and fair elections!

Documentaries have already been done. They have some use in recruiting activists, but almost none for effecting real reforms. If they ever make it to a wider audience, the only result is a downtick in public opinion polls, but no action. Anything less than detailed, step-by-step, daily plans for the coordinated action by tens or hundreds of thousands of dedicated individuals will work, and they need to focus on real changes:

1. Legislation adopted and enforced. (Exact wording provided.)
2. Court decisions made and enforced, after winning on appeal (trial decisions might help parties but don’t make real changes). (Exact wording provided.)
3. Removal of officials from office, imprisonment of some, and perhaps replacement by much better ones. (Win elections, remove immunities.)
4. Changes in school curricula and what students are tested on. (Change the teachers and textbook authors.)
5. Changes in the incentives for officials to do the right things, and to open government to intervention by outsiders. (It’s the System — structures and procedures.)
6. Get control of the media. (Social media is a start, but that doesn’t reach the majority.)

Never arouse concern without providing specific action plans that can be carried out by individuals using the resources under their control. Otherwise the only result is despair and discouragement. Discouraged people don’t make reforms. When individuals do take steps, they need to be commended and supported to keep them going to take the next steps.
— Jon

A very interesting development today, I was contacted by the U.S. Marshals Service . They are coming to where I am staying today at 1:30 pm to discuss the mailing of Documents and my phone call to the U.S. Attorneys Office in Seattle.

From the US Marshall Service web page http://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial/index.html, they are NOT advocates for citizens…. we are their source of income by justifying their tactics to “protect the judiciary” against citizens, not to protect citizens from a corrupt judiciary. It is a self enforcing scheme to insure “job security”… go after the symptom (angry citizens) and leave the disease intact (corrupt judges).

Judicial Security
The United States Marshals Service, Judicial Security Division (JSD), is committed to the protection of the judicial process – by ensuring the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings and protecting federal judges, jurors and other members of the federal judiciary. This mission is accomplished by anticipating and deterring threats to the judiciary, and the continuous development and employment of innovative protective techniques. The JSD is organized into two program areas, Judicial Operations and Judicial Services.

This is a summary of four cases involving corruption in the WSBA’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel:

TO: MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
RE: THE BROKEN SYSTEM OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE IN WASHINGTON

Several matters of vital importance need to be brought to the attention of members of the Washington State Bar Association:

WSBA vs. MADELINE GAUTHIER, Public No. 01#00017 The WSBA brought formal charges against attorney Gauthier for alleged violations of CR 11 in an estate matter and sought to suspend her license to practice law. Ms. Gauthier had alleged that the attorney for an estate creditor had threatened to threatened to coach his client to give false testimony and for threatening to use that false testimony to sabotage the deceased’s wrongful death claim. The act of obtaining an Order to Show Cause requiring the attorney for the estate creditor and the estate creditor to appear in Court was alleged to be a matter subjecting Ms. Gauthier to discipline from the Bar. The Court entered the Order to Show Cause.

Orders to Show Cause are entered on an ex parte basis, without notice to opposing counsel, all the time. They are specifically authorized by the Supreme Court. (See WPF DR 04.0150 (MEXRSC)) Orders to Show Cause are used to obtain jurisdiction over a person who is not yet a party. A creditor in an estate case is not a party. How can a lawyer be disciplined for obtaining such an Order when a Superior Court Judge has determined that there is enough of a basis to enter such an Order to Show Cause? Courts enter orders finding violations of CR 11 all the time. Why did the WSBA choose to pursue Ms. Gauthier for alleged ethical violations in this instance while failing to pursue hundreds of other attorneys in instances where they were found to have committed CR 11 violations? Proportionality? The actions of the WSBA in this case caused the ABA to conduct an audit or review of the WSBA’s conduct. How did this ABA involvement occur? What were the findings of the ABA audit or review? Why have the findings of the ABA not been disclosed to the WSBA membership? The disciplinary proceedings against attorney Gauthier were eventually dismissed. What precipitated this dismissal?

WSBA vs. KAREN UNGER, Public No. 06#00071 In the Unger case, the Washington State Supreme Court authorized the payment of something between $60,000 and $100,000 in WSBA funds to partially compensate an attorney, Karen Unger, for her attorney fees spent in defending what the Bar’s Hearing Officer found to be a frivolous WSBA Disciplinary Proceeding. The WSBA also used false, untrue and misleading information in its case. The underlying complaint against Ms. Unger involved her representation of a client in a criminal matter. Before becoming Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Douglas J. Ende, specialized in criminal appellate work. Why did Mr. Ende pursue a frivolous disciplinary proceeding? Does anyone have an idea about the legality of this expenditure of Bar funds? Why did the WSBA use false, untrue and misleading information to make a case against Ms. Unger? In In Re Gauthier, described above, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Board clearly demonstrated that they considered bringing a frivolous action to be a violation of the ethical rules justifying a suspension from the practice of law. Of course, no disciplinary action or adverse employment action was taken against the ODC attorneys (or the Disciplinary Board staff attorneys or the members of the Disciplinary Board) involved in bringing the frivolous Unger disciplinary proceedings and in using false, untrue and misleading information against Ms. Unger, even though the harm to Ms. Unger was far greater than any harm to the opposing party and counsel in Gauthier – Ms. Unger’s disciplinary proceedings went on for three years and cost her $100,000 in attorney fees.

I contacted former Supreme Court Justices Richard Sanders, Talmadge, Bridge and Enyeart by email about this Unger matter. Only Justice Sanders responded to my emails. Some of the emails are attached below. Justice Sanders stated that he was “outraged” about the Unger matter and that the ODC attorney involved was still employed by the WSBA. The details of this matter were withheld from Justice Sanders and presumably the other Justices. How can this be? The Supreme Court is in charge of attorney discipline. The Supreme Court is the boss of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. How can the details of this matter be withheld from the WSBA membership? Isn’t this ethical misconduct on the part of the ODC? Does the Disciplinary Board do its job and evaluate disciplinary cases before it issues a Statement of Charges against an attorney? Why shouldn’t the actions of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Board, in pursuing Ms. Unger on frivolous charges, subject them to disciplinary action or removal from office in the same way they pursued Ms. Gauthier? Why shouldn’t the attorneys in the Office of Disciplinary Counsel be subjected to disciplinary charges for their conduct? Why are they still employed by the WSBA? Why is this any different from the Duke Lacrosse Team prosecutor, Mike Nifong, who was disbarred for the same conduct? Why hasn’t this been disclosed the membership of the WSBA? Why has this matter been covered up? Where did the $60,000 to $100,000 the WSBA used to compensate Ms. Unger come from? What authority was used to pay this money? Why didn’t Ms. Unger receive full compensation? Why did the WSBA refuse to provide me with the information I requested? Why was I retaliated against for blowing the whistle on this matter? I was threatened by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (in writing) for contacting the former Justices listed above about this matter.

Yes Paul, I have heard this. If I were still on the court I would try to get you all the details, but I think that might be difficult. But I’ll try if you can’t get satisfaction. I suggest you call Justice Owens. Karen Unger is her friend and she (Owens) recused from her case for that reason. She knows the details or could get them. Let me know what you find out. While I was on the court I tried mightly to change the rule which says if the lawyer loses he pays the bar’s reasonable attorney fees, but if he wins the bar doesn’t pay anything. You also might call Karen’s lawyer. Like I said if you strike out I’ll try to help myself. Great to hear from you.
Richard

In a message dated 7/27/2011 4:39:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, psimmerly@hermanrecor.com writes:
Justice Sanders: Well, I have struck out. I have been trying for three years to obtain this information. The ODC is free to take Membership money at any time? Why is this a secret? Is there misconduct going on that the Bar wants to remain secret? Why else wouldn’t this information be readily available? The ODC is retaliating against me and my clients. Please do not contact Justice Owens or any other sitting Justice. The ODC is claiming that this would be ex parte contact. Their reasoning escapes me.

When I first heard about this, a long time before you contacted me, I was outraged. Still am. I was also told the same attorney at fault is still employed by the bar. See my last message for further action.

Richard

WSBA vs. ROBERT GRUNDSTEIN, Public No.07-02058 and 10-00097

Background The Cleveland, Ohio judicial, court and law enforcement systems have an incredible, and possibly unprecedented, history of corruption. Robert Grundstein, a resident of Vermont, was a member of the WSBA on inactive status and had never had a client in Washington State. In 2007, Robert Grundstein wrote an editorial critical of ex-judge Peter Junkin of Cleveland, Ohio (later removed from office during the FBI raids on Cleveland for racketeering with connections to LA Mob and prostitution activities). Six months later, the County Sheriff (since arrested and convicted) had his detectives present evidence to the Grand Jury that on April 28, 2003, Mr. Grundstein altered an original document in the exclusive possession and control of a suburban Cleveland municipal court. The Grand Jury refused to give an indictment and returned a “No Bill”. Only four percent of presentments to the Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Grand Juries get a “No Bill”. It is illegal to re-present. See the Ohio Supreme Court case of Froehlich v Ohio Board of Mental Health, August 20, 2007). Most importantly, Mr. Grundstein was not in Ohio during 2003 and had the ATM receipts to prove it.

Mr. Grundstein’s case was illegally re-presented to the Grand Jury and this time a True Bill was returned based upon false information. He had to fight this matter.

The judge would not bring the case to trial. Mr. Grundstein moved to dismiss. The judge, Michael Russo, refused to rule on Mr. Grundstein’s motions. The prosecutor would not drop the case. Trial was scheduled three times. Mr. Grundstein refused to take a plea. Every time Mr. Grundstein came in to Cleveland from his home in Vermont for trial, he found out only upon his arrival in Ohio that the trial had been cancelled. The prosecutor scheduled eight (8) pre-trials for which Mr. Grundstein had to drive in to Ohio from Vermont. Nothing was ever discussed at them. The Criminal Clerk of Courts falsified the docket to say Mr. Grundstein kept asking for continuances. The Criminal Clerk of Courts, Mark Lime, is now in jail on 76 counts of altering records and theft.

After eleven trips to Ohio over the course of a year, Mr. Grundstein realized that Ohio was not going to give him a trial, rule on his motions or drop the case. Finally, he was forced to settle for a $50.00 fine.

The prosecutor, Bill Mason, was forced to resign as a result of the FBI raids, shortly after Mr. Grundstein’s case was resolved. Another prosecutor involved in the case, Joe O’Malley, was sent to federal prison for case fixing, bribery and perjury.

WSBA Action Senior Disciplinary Counsel Douglas Ende called Mr. Grundstein in February of 2008 to discuss the matter. Mr. Grundstein told them everything and he advised them that he wanted the WSBA to know all about the case. Someone from Ohio had sent the WSBA an anonymous letter about Mr. Grundstein in October of 2007. Mr. Grundstein didn’t hear from the WSBA for another three years when the WSBA sent him a Formal Complaint. In In re Ressa, 94 Wn 2d 882, 621 P.2d 153 (1980), the Supreme Court found a delay of three years in a disciplinary case to be unreasonable.

During Mr. Grundstein’s disciplinary proceeding, the WSBA amended the Statement of Charges against him a total of eight times, including an amendment that requested his disbarment when the original Statement of Charges only requested “probation”. All of these amendments were allowed by Hearing Office Lisa Hammel. The WSBA sought to enforce what it thought were problems with motions Mr. Grundstein had filed in an unrelated legal matter in Vermont. Vermont had found no problem with those motions and had taken no disciplinary action against Mr. Grundstein. What authority does the WSBA have to enforce what an attorney does in another state?

Mr. Grundstein was disbarred. One of the reasons was that he committed a felony in Ohio. The only problem was that he had never been convicted of a felony. This was of no concern to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, who continuously misrepresented the facts or to the Hearing Officer, Lisa Hammel, who disregarded Mr. Grundstein’s affirmative defenses in this regard and the WSBA’s failure to prove the commission of a felony.

Mr. Grundstein was also charged by the WSBA with a violation of RPC 8.4, alteration of a court document. Mr. Grundstein had taken a faxed copy of the court document, which had been typed in black ink, and wrote on it in blue ink, in his own handwriting, the “(c)” after Lakewood, Ohio Municipal Code 549.04. All of 549.04, including subsection “(c)”, deals with misdemeanors. Lakewood, Ohio Municipal Court only deals with misdemeanors. It has no jurisdiction over felonies. Mr. Grundstein had needed to explain the matter to the FBI in order to be able to buy a gun. He had to explain that he had never been convicted of a felony so he wrote the FBI a letter explaining that he had not been convicted of a felony, including in it the court document which had his added subsection “(c)”. There was no alteration and no intent to deceive anyone. He wrote on a faxed copy of a court document and never tried to pass his writing off as part of the court document.

In her Findings of Fact and Law, Hearing Officer Lisa Hammel incorrectly found that Mr. Grundstein had changed the record on a 2002 conviction for Improper Storage of Firearm, from a Felony to a Misdemeanor. But Mr. Grundstein in fact had never been convicted of such a felony or any other felony. She was referring to a charge under Lakewood, Ohio Municipal Code 549.04(c). Lakewood Municipal Court is a suburban Cleveland court. It only has misdemeanor jurisdiction. It can’t hear or charge felonies. The charge under 549.04 was a misdemeanor of the 4th degree, the lowest in Ohio. It didn’t get sent to Cuyahoga Common Pleas where felonies are heard. It was completely resolved as a minor matter in Lakewood. Mr. Grundstein had to come to Cleveland to defend his mother from people who embezzled from her. He neglected to leave his .22 pistol in Vermont. His car was towed during a rush hour violation. The police impounded his vehicle, unlocked it, went through everything and found his pistol.

Three weeks after his Disciplinary Hearing, Mr. Grundstein received a copy of the Hearing record that he had requested. All of his 42 Exhibits which had been admitted by Hearing Officer Hammel at the Hearing were gone. All of his documentary proof had been removed from the record. The 80 pages of transcripts of the disciplinary proceeding bear this out. The WSBA had stolen every one of Mr. Grundstein’s exhibits that irrefutably proved his innocence and the state of the law in Ohio. These exhibits proved that Mr. Grundstein was not in Ohio at the times alleged, he never altered a court document, he was never convicted of a felony, he never changed the record of a felony into a misdemeanor and that he never issued a subpoena illegally. The WSBA hid all Mr. Grundstein’s evidence of innocence. Why doesn’t this conduct constitute violations of RPC 3.2, 3.3 and 3.8 (duty to acknowledge exculpatory evidence at all times), the requirements of Brady v Maryland, obstruction of justice and spoliation of evidence?

The WSBA Disciplinary Board was fully informed, on multiple occasions, of what had occurred, but completely ignored the situation and refused to do anything. The WSBA, the ODC, the Disciplinary Board, Hearing Officer Hammel and the Washington State Supreme Court are unconcerned about this. Why aren’t WSBA Hearing Officers concerned about the integrity of the record in disciplinary proceedings that they control? Why aren’t WSBA Hearing Officers and the Disciplinary Board concerned about misrepresentations that are made to them? Compare this to the situation with the disbarred Duke Lacrosse team Prosecutor Mike Nifong.

The Washington Supreme Court refused to allow Mr. Grundstein to appeal his disbarment. He tried to file his appeal eighteen days after the Disciplinary Board’s decision, thinking his filing was timely. The Supreme Court found that it was not even though there is authority for a longer deadline. Efforts to file motions to vacate his disbarment based upon CR 60 – fraud and irregularities in obtaining a judgment – were rejected by Clerks. He was not even allowed by the Clerks to file these documents to get them in front of the Disciplinary Board or the Supreme Court.

Mr. Grundstein has federal lawsuits pending in the 9th Circuit and the federal District Court in Vermont. The Judge in the suit in Vermont has refused to grant the WSBA’s motion to dismiss. John Scannell has a federal RICO case against the WSBA pending.

Mr. Grundstein filed Bar Grievances against all members of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel involved, but these were ignored and dismissed without any investigation or consideration. How can the Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigate Grievances against itself?

Mr. Grundstein’s odyssey through the disciplinary process is further described in the book he has just written, Vendetta: Cleveland Ohio Vermont to Washington State America’s Archipelago of Legal Failure. The link to this book is:

Why shouldn’t Mr. Grundstein be entitled to an immediate hearing before the Washington State Supreme Court to determine if his disbarment, due to the intentional use of false, untrue and misleading information, should be vacated?

WSBA vs. ANNE BLOCK, Public No. 14#00016 Anne Block is a reporter, blogger, citizen activist and whistleblower who runs the Gold Bar, Washington Reporter. She has investigated alleged on-going corruption in the highest levels of government in Snohomish County and the City of Gold Bar. Ms. Block was also a member of the Washington State Bar Association.

As part of her investigations, Ms. Block has made numerous requests as far back as 2008 for public records of Snohomish County and Gold Bar government under Washington State’s Public Records Act. Ms. Block pursued a recall vote against then-Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon. Mr. Reardon’s staff then responded by authoring a 2700 word attack page about Ms. Block in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows users to collaboratively create content. The Wikipedia managers removed it. Some of Ms. Block’s activity contributed to Mr. Reardon’s resignation as Snohomish County Executive.

Government officials have reacted to Ms. Block’s requests with great hostility and retaliation, to put it mildly. Ms. Block has filed a federal civil rights suit against these officials. See Block v. Snohomish County, et al., U.S. District Court Cause No. 2:14-cv-00235.

One government official, John E. Pennington, has filed approximately 32 Grievances against Ms. Block with the Bar Association as part of an effort to derail her investigations and requests for public records. There has been an organized campaign within Snohomish County and Gold Bar government to file Bar Grievances against Ms. Block, alleging “harassment”. No attempt, however, has been made by any of these “Grievants” to obtain an anti-harassment order mind you. Why not? Perhaps it is because they know that they have no case against Ms. Block and that they would be subjecting themselves to an Anti-SLAPP suit motion. See Washington’s Anti-SLAPP Suit law, RCW 4.24.525, which allows the filing of a special motion to strike any claim filed that is based upon public statements made about an issue of public concern. Or perhaps it is because they would have to produce the records requested by Ms. Block in discovery to their anti-harassment action. Or perhaps they do not want to produce evidence of their wrongdoing or draw further attention to it. Since when do requests for documents made under our Public Records Act constitute “harassment”?

Ms. Block has never represented Mr. Pennington and Mr. Pennington has never been Ms. Block’s client. Despite all of this, the WSBA Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Senior Disciplinary Counsel Linda Eide have seen fit to file a formal Statement of Charges against Ms. Block in response to these complaints. The WSBA wants her reporter records in violation of the Media Shield laws and has attempted to issue a subpoena to obtain them. Ms. Eide is a friend of Mr.Pennington. Why is the Bar Association getting involved in this effort by government officials to cover-up alleged government corruption and Ms. Block’s attempts to exercise her rights under the First Amendment and Washington’s Public Records Act? Aren’t the actions of the WSBA also violations of Washington’s Anti-SLAPP suit law, R.C.W. 4.24.525, as well as federal civil rights laws?

OTHER QUESTIONS The WSBA routinely resolves disciplinary cases by offering to accept a sum of money from the attorney in exchange for not proceeding with a formal disciplinary proceeding. Where is this procedure authorized? How often is it used? How much money is collected? Where does the money that is collected go?

Please forward this email to all attorneys and Judges.

Contact me if you wish to receive any of the pleadings verifying the facts which have been stated.

Please also contact the Justices of the Washington State Supreme Court and the members of the Board of Governors to request explanations of these matters and to voice your concerns:

Today was indeed a unique experience, having “our” U.S. Marshals Service send a seasoned veteran to my home named Arnold Night and basically having him and his partner state point blank that they nor the U.S. Attorneys Office would do anything about documented proof of Federal Felony Judicial Organized Crime Corruption . Offering them both the same documents of verifiable proof of this being true. They did not want to see them nor were they willing to uphold the Law or my Rights.

The best part of it was when Bill Scheidler showed up at my door about 20 min. into this meeting with these U.S. Marshals our tax dollars are going to for them to refuse to do anything according to printed Law. Refuse to honor the DOJ employee guideline instruction manual specifically 9-4100.

But having Bill show up for support and witness as I did for him in Kitsap County Superior Court when Judge Harper flat refused to provide Due Process of Law to Bill and I both right in front of everyone including the Court Stenographer.

So reinforced by the presence of Bill showing up , is a prime example of what we all must do on this site , stick together and stay on this. Without doing so is what has enabled the corruption and the taking of our Government from us like they illegally have to date.

Even though it is technically our Government, we are no longer in possession of it or Law enforcement. Both of which have been illegally stolen from their rightful owners, and we are continuing to pay these criminals to do this to us. It must stop, and the only way is for us to do this together as a body, a voice from the public, so they cannot single us out any more and victimize us as they have to each of us.

Today was not a lost battle at all, nor does it represent who will win this war. But it did Officially .establish that it is nothing less than that, A WAR. Having our own Government War upon innocent Law abiding citizens. so at this juncture my thanks go out to the U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Attorneys Office Jenny Durken , Tesa Gorman and Robert Westinghouse for clarifying this for all of us, so as we no longer have to wonder if it is really this bad and totally out of control. Treason to the citizens of the United States and the Constitution of the United States.

Although in addition to the aforementioned, to some degree it was a bit of a loss to all of us today, Anytime a Government Official substantiates to any of us that they are totally unwilling to provide honest legal services. Refuses to honor their employers printed employee guideline manual and what is Officially required of them as DOJ employees, it is a sad moment and a bit of a loss to all of the United States..

Therefore I am bound to follow through with sending a certified request to the inspector General in charge of the Washington State Field Office for the U. S. Marshals Service and request a copy of the cost voucher and expenses incurred for them to come to my home and in front of both Bill and myself, refuse to provide honest legal services. I will request an Official copy of their 502 report , and in turn file suit for refusal to provide honest legal services. Pointing out that I would expect the court to provide honest legal services by honoring my jury demand so as to have this matter properly heard.

God knows it is tough for me to continue after everything I have been and still am being illegally subjected to, but I have no choice. So my message to all of us is hang in there people, for there shall be many battles, but what is important is, who wins the WAR. If we did not already have the walls of their house of cards rattling , we would not receive this much resistance and attention. It is merely proof that our enemy believes that we will achieve our goals.

I’ve been through all of this with the Marshals Dis-Service when I came to close the corruption of a federal judge. He told the Marshal Service that I threatened him in a court document. (never happened). I was just pointing out the law and how he was not following federal law and court rules. I got a little to close to his corruption so he siced the Marshals on me. Even the Marshal said that he didn’t see anything threatening. So much for a fair judiciary. Time to do like the Declaration of Independence says and do our “Duty.” Time to replace these Criminals-In-Black-Robes with a fair judiciary not run by their private club.

Carrie, you are already doing it… going public! When I was studying for an MBA and how to measure customer satisfaction the rule of thumb was for every customer who voiced a complaint there were at least 25 others who are just as dissatisfied but choose to remain quiet. So you are speaking for at least 25 of your fellow “private citizens” by voicing your dissatisfaction with our “legal establishment”.

Right now we have a lot of irons in the fire … one of which is our ‘class claim’ that will end up, most likely, as a “class action” lawsuit. You may want to look it over to see if you want to add your claim to the mix. Or, send an email to Anne Block, http://www.goldbarreporter.org, she has some ideas that might be interesting to you too.

Regardless of what more you can do or not, your time and effort in the comments made here to expose those who betray our trust is greatly appreciated and will add another voice of validation in the other things we are doing.

Thanks Bill, I will do. As far as Gipe and Mcglothin, I know McGlothin is suing his old partner Serin Ngai, but then I am sure he will skip to Florida where his license his current. He also has contacts in Mexico and worse case will be he leaves for good. I will do as you suggested, good points you make on the stats. I actually sued the Secretary of the Air Force thirty years ago and won. I am not afraid of pursuing justice and I am proud to stand behind you and your courageous team!

Washing judicial system is operating as collection agency for the banking system. All of the WSBA members took an oath to ser and protect the interests of the banking system, andnot to uphold the Constitution, nor to protect the rights of people outside their “closed union shop. See the Taft Hartley Act”. I think the oath they took is under a fderal act, code or public law in sec. 62. I will find the exact cite, so that all can be aware of what we are all up against. I am not a constitutionalist nor a member of any party, whatsoever. I beleive we all have rules, and if the rules are broken, the violator bears the liability, and is not immunized or excused. The law merchants have rigged everything, so that they are not responsible to anyone other than their “association (club) members. The Fourth Kingdom of Man is at its very end, and the ways of the law merchants is being put out with the rest of the trash. If we don’t get to them first, a far more destructive consequence awaits our evil law society, and yes, I truly meant to say ‘EVIL LAW SOCIETY’, their entire system.